Update on EPA Petition to Regulate Silver as a "Pesticide"

First, I want to give a great big hearty "thanks!" to everyone who participated in the campaign to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating products containing silver nano-particles as "pesticides."

As you already know if you've been following this blog since January, a coalition of radical environmental groups essentially sued the EPA in an attempt to force the agency into more heavily regulating all products containing silver nano-particles -- including dietary colloidal silver products.

They claimed these products have such powerful antimicrobial qualities that they actually constitute a grave danger to the environment, and must be regulated as "toxic pesticides."

This onerous new regulatory oversight would, in essence, put most colloidal silver companies out of business, because they would be unable to afford the costs of the required environmental impact reports and the consequent ongoing regulatory financial burdens.

It later turned out that the radical environmental groups behind the petition have been funded for years by major drug companies such as Merck and others, whose annual multi-billion dollar income depends in large part upon their sales of prescription antibiotic drugs.

The big drug companies have opposed the use of silver for years, because its broad-spectrum antibiotic qualities pose a distinct threat to their monopoly on prescription antibiotic drugs.

Hence, it appears clear that the major drug companies have been behind the petition to regulate silver as a "pesticide" all along, and that the radical environmental groups that filed the petition have been acting as their paid shills.

What's more, in the closing days of the campaign the radical environmental groups began promoting what they called a "major new study" demonstrating that silver nano-particles -- including colloidal silver -- cause harm to cells, and therefore products containing silver nano-particles need to be more heavily regulated.

Upon closer inspection however, it was discovered that a very small and practically unknown Chinese group was behind the study, and that it too was in cahoots with two major pharmaceutical companies. Stunningly, when the study was examined, all it demonstrated is the fact that very small particles of silver are harmful to e. coli bacteria!

In short, we have faced a number or dirty tricks by the radical environmentalists during the course of this campaign. Nevertheless, thanks to you, the EPA was inundated with public comments against the petition.

And while the radical environmental groups were able to tap their global membership bases in order to garner an incredible level of support on behalf of their petition (i.e., mostly by deceiving their members into believing that silver particles somehow pose a grave threat to the environment), your participation in this campaign played a large part in making sure the EPA got to hear the other side of the story before making their final decision on the matter.

Where Things Stand Now

At present, we have a phone call in to the office of the Administrator of the EPA, asking them for an update on the petition. We expect to hear back from them within 24 to 48 hours.

Now that the public comments period is over (as of March 20th) we are trying to find out from the EPA which way they are leaning in regards to accepting or rejecting the petition. At the very least, we want to know what kind of time-frame to expect in regards to when EPA will issue their final ruling on the petition.

Traditionally, bureaucracies like the EPA are slow-moving, and can take anywhere from several weeks to several months to analyze the results of public comments, to study the issue further, to consult with leaders on both sides of the issue, and to form a ruling on it.

You can rest assured that we will keep you fully updated in the pages of this blog as new information becomes available. So do be sure to check back frequently for updates. In the meantime, we will continue to post additional information on the many helpful and beneficial uses of colloidal silver. (See our list of archived articles in the right hand column.)

Email Updates

If you would like to be notified by email whenever new information on this particular issue becomes available, please go to http://www.thesilveredge.com/ and click the link in the upper left-hand corner of the home page that says "Click here to get your FREE colloidal silver dosage report and newsletter."

That link will open up a dialogue box that will allow you to add yourself to the email list of The Silver Edge, a company which sells high-quality colloidal silver generators as well as unique nutritional supplements, and which I am closely associated with as their "resident colloidal silver advocate."

The good folks at The Silver Edge have agreed to email any updates from us on the EPA issue to their entire customer mailing list. That is the quickest and easiest way for you to be notified when new information comes to light.

(By the way, you can unsubscribe from their email list at any time, simply by clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of any email you receive from them. So you don't have to worry about being perpetually spammed. Also, your email contact information is held in strictest confidence and privacy; The Silver Edge will never rent, sell or otherwise give out your email address once you sign up to receive email notifications from them.)

Will Colloidal Silver Be Banned?

Products containing silver nano-particles -- including dietary colloidal silver products -- have been the target of the petition from the beginning. This, as evidenced by the fact that the radical environmental groups behind the petition included a special addendum naming 300 different products containing silver nano-particles as being in need of "investigation and regulation," including the top three brands of colloidal silver on the market today as well as many lesser-known brands.

When we contacted the main attorney for these environmental groups to inquire why their petition to regulate silver nano-particles as "pesticides" included the names of dietary colloidal silver products, he replied that any product containing small nano-particles of silver for antimicrobial purposes was in need of immediate investigation and regulation.

What's more, the environmental groups have repeatedly demanded that the EPA remove all nano-silver products from the market, while the potential impact of those products on the environment are investigated.

In other words, they are calling for a de facto ban on colloidal silver and other nano-silver products, until it can be proven to their satisfaction that these products won't somehow "harm the environment."

Your Best Solution

Your best solution at this point is to purchase a high-quality colloidal silver generator.

That way, even if the EPA ultimately drives colloidal silver vendors out of business through the proposed onerous new regulations, you'll nevertheless be able to make all of the safe, pure, natural colloidal silver your family could ever need, in the comfort and privacy of your own home, for only pennies per batch, and there is not a darn thing the bureaucrats can do about it.

They key, of course, is to get a generator now, while they are still legally available.

We strongly recommend the new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from our good friends at The Silver Edge. You can learn more about their new unit at http://www.microparticlegenerator.com.

Important Links:

http://www.ColloidalSilverSecretsVideo.com
http://www.UltimateColloidalSilverManual.com
http://www.TheSilverEdge.com
http://www.MicroParticleGenerator.com
http://www.ColloidalSilverCuresMRSA.com
http://www.LifeandHealthResearchGroup.com

Enviro Groups Lie About Study in Last Ditch Effort to Have Silver Regulated by EPA as a "Pesticide"

Enviro Groups Lie About Study in Last Ditch Effort to Have Silver Regulated by EPA as a "Pesticide"

Well, don't say I didn't warn you there would be more dirty tricks in the closing days of the campaign by radical environmental groups to have silver regulated as a "pesticide" by the EPA.

Here's what I stated in my previous post:

"Without a doubt you can expect more dirty tricks from these rabid environmentalists in the coming weeks, including the last-minute posting of “studies” demonstrating their contention that silver nano-particles are somehow 'harmful' to the environment.The enviro-nuts will most likely wait until the very last minute to present these studies to the EPA because they know it will not leave time for our side to review and digest them, and provide point-by-point rebuttals or refutations.The environmental groups have also already cited studies which they claim “prove” silver nano-particles harm humans as well as the animals in the environment.But of course, what they never disclose is the fact that those studies were done under controlled laboratory conditions that simply don’t exist in the environment. And that in every case, either huge overdoses of silver nano-particles were used, or living cells and tissues were exposed to pure silver nanoparticles in ways that simply could not be duplicated outside of the laboratory, and therefore have no bearing on human or animal real-life experiences with silver."

Right on Target

Boy was I ever right. In fact, this time the enviro-nuts have really outdone themselves by waiting until just a few short days before the close of the EPA public comments period on March 20th to unleash the following missive against silver, which is full of outright lies, distortions and half-truths, as you will see once we dissect and deconstruct it phrase by phrase. Here is what the environmentalists are now claiming:

"Yet another major study on nano-silver toxicity has been published during the comment period. The study found that nano-silver used in food storage materials, such as plastic bags and containers, can directly interact with genomes and bind with DNA, interfering with DNA replication. Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging, many of which contain nano-silver. Help us ensure that these products are safe by supporting our petition to the EPA."

Cutting Through the Hype and Exaggerations

Let's dissect this bold little missive phrase by phrase, and see if we can’t put our collective fingers on the devious modus operandi being used by these radical environmental groups in their campaign on behalf of the big drug companies to regulate products containing silver nano-particles into oblivion:

First they state, "Yet another major study on nano-silver toxicity has been published during the comment period."

What's wrong with that statement? First of all, the study they are referencing is hardly what you could call a "major" study. It is in fact a very small study conducted in the People’s Republic of China (yes, Red China, home of the melamine scandal and tainted toothpaste scare) by a little known group calling themselves the Bio-X Life Science Research Center.

Interestingly, the Bio-X Life Science Research Center admit on their own web site that they are operating in association with two major drug companies, AstraZeneca International and Roche.

Who are These 2 Big Drug Companies?

Roche (aka Hoffman-LaRoche) is a huge, well-known multi-national drug company which makes Bactrim, Rocephin, Lariam, Tamiflu, Invirase and numerous other antibiotic and antiviral drugs for the treatment of infectious diseases.

AstraZeneca, another huge, multi-national drug company, state right on their web site that they too are focusing a large part of their business model on developing and marketing infection-fighting antibiotic and anti-viral drugs and vaccines. In fact, they state, “We aim to build a leading franchise in the treatment of infectious diseases by increasing the sales of the marketed brands Synagis, Merrem and Flumist and bringing new products to market by exploiting our structural and genomic-based discovery technologies and our antibody platforms.”

In other words, the group behind the study supposedly demonstrating that nano-silver is harmful is, in reality, in bed with two of the largest drug companies on the face of the earth, both of which are major players in the antibiotic drug, anti-viral drug and vaccine markets.

These are the among the very same drug companies that hate colloidal silver and other silver-based products the most, and have the most to lose if silver ever becomes a major resource in products designed to prevent and cure infections and related disease!

More Deception and Exaggeration from the Environmentalists

Once their first exaggeration is established, the radical environmentalists go on to say in their statement that “The study found that nano-silver used in food storage materials, such as plastic bags and containers, can directly interact with genomes and bind with DNA, interfering with DNA replication.”

Sounds serious. But is this true? No. Once again, it is a cleverly worded deception.

First of all, according to the study abstract, the study authors first openly admit that “…information on whether or how nanosilver particles bring changes in genetic materials remains scant.”

In other words, the study authors admit they simply don’t know whether or not tiny particles of silver bring about changes in genetic materials, or how it might happen if they did. It is all speculation. And that speculation is fueled by the radical neo-Luddite environmentalists who oppose the use of tiny silver nano-particles in on behalf of the major drug companies who pay their bills.

Secondly, and most importantly, the study is not even specifically designed to prove that products containing silver nanoparticles are potentially harmful to humans, or even that silver nano-particles could, by themselves, could harm to humans. Yet the environmentalists would have you believe the exact opposite.

Indeed, their statement is cleverly designed to make you think that the study authors actually took plastic bags and other containers with silver particles embedded in them and tested to see whether or not the silver would somehow leach from the bag or container, and then enter a human being and harm human DNA replication. In reality, the study did no such thing.

What Really Happened

Here’s what the researchers actually did, and what the study actually demonstrated:

First, the researchers exposed E. coli cell cultures – not human cell cultures, but bacterial cell cultures -- to three different types of nanosilver, including colloidal silver. (As most people know, E. coli, also known as Escherichia coli, is a gram negative bacteria most widely known for its ability to cause food poisoning.)

And what did they find? They found that “The results showed that the replication fidelity of the rpsL gene was differentially compromised by all three kinds of nanosilver particle compared with that without nanosilver.”

In other words, they discovered that silver disrupts the ability of this infectious microorganism to replicate. That’s it. They actually proved what colloidal silver users have been saying all along, i.e., that tiny particles of silver destroy pathogens from the inside out!

So what did this study have to do with human cells? NOTHING. And what did this study have to do with products containing silver nano-particles? NOTHING.

The Truth Be Told

We all know that as far back as the 1980’s researchers like Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. used tiny electrical devices to generate minute silver particles directly into the surgical wound sites of patients suffering from debilitating and potentially deadly bone infections, and not only did these researchers cure every supposedly “incurable” bone infection with the electrically generated silver, but they also found no harm whatsoever was caused to the patients’ cells, tissues or bones in spite of the fact that the silver was being generated directly into the bone, tissues, cells and surrounding bodily fluids.

Indeed, using this process damaged cells were rejuvenated, and remarkable new growth took place in the damaged bone bringing about complete healing.

The bottom line is that the study being touted by the radical environmentalists as proof of silver’s “toxicity” to humans merely demonstrated, at best, that if you put a sandwich inside of a sandwich baggie or other container that’s been embedded with silver micro-particles, you’re probably not going to get food poisoning, because the dirty little critters like E. coli simply can’t live in the presence of silver.

Nevertheless, the radical environmentalists go on to somberly intone in their latest misleading missive: “Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging, many of which contain nano-silver. Help us ensure that these products are safe by supporting our petition to the EPA."

What they’ve done, in essence, is taken a study that proves three different forms of nano-silver – including colloidal silver -- are highly effective against one of the most prevalent and potentially deadly food poisoning bacteria on the face of the earth. And they’ve cleverly re-defined the study results so that it sounds as if they study proved nano-silver has now been demonstrated to harm humans!

Clever re-definition of the facts…deceptive wording…and ruthlessly self-serving conclusions. That, in a nutshell, is the modus operandi of the radical environmentalists.

Are We Going To Win?

I hate to say it, but the colloidal silver community is on the verge of losing this battle. While over a thousand colloidal silver users and health freedom advocates have actively petitioned the EPA to disregard the demands of the radical environmental groups who are pushing for regulation of silver at the behest of their Big Pharma paymasters, the so-called “Big Boys” in the colloidal silver community have smugly sat on their hands doing nothing.

Indeed, one of the largest manufacturers of colloidal silver in the industry actually joined with the radical environmentalists in asking for an extension of the public comments deadline from January 20th to March 20th, ostensibly because they wanted to “produce new evidence in defense of nanosilver.” Did they ever produce the evidence? Not that I can tell. Indeed, to my knowledge no one has heard a peep out of them since.

To fill you in on a little behind-the-scenes background information, I wrote one of their representatives in January asking them to reconsider their ill-advised request to have the public comments period extended. I explained to their representative in no uncertain terms that they were shooting themselves in the foot, and that they were doing so just as a hard-earned victory against the EPA petition was in sight.

After all, at that time (i.e., mid-January) we had already managed to dramatically turn the tide of public opinion against the petition to have the EPA regulate silver as a “pesticide,” and the environmental groups were running with their tails tucked between their legs as over 1,000 comments from colloidal silver users had poured in to the EPA web site in just over a 10 day period.

I warned however that the environmental groups had vastly larger and far more unified and disciplined membership bases that stretched globally rather than just nationally. And we explained that given any extra time, the environmentalists would be able to tap into and exploit their vast global membership bases in support of their petition to have nano-silver products – including colloidal silver -- regulated as “pesticides.”

I further explained that the flood of additional support for the petition that the radical environmentalists would doubtlessly be able to generate if they were given more time would likely drown out any additional support the colloidal silver community might be able to drum up from among its relatively small and unorganized base.

Finally, I explained that if the public comments period was extended any longer, it would give the radical environmentalists more time to submit self-serving medical studies ostensibly demonstrating that tiny silver particles somehow cause harm to humans, animals and/or the environment (which, of course, they do not).

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

In a nutshell, I carefully explained to the representatives of this major colloidal silver manufacturer that just as victory was in sight, they would, in essence, be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by giving the radical environmentalists more time to rally their troops worldwide. And I strongly urged them to reconsider their request to have the EPA public comments deadline extended.

But it was too late. They refused to listen, and the EPA quietly granted the extension of the comments deadline from January 20th to March 20th, which was requested by both the radical environmentalists and representatives of this major colloidal silver manufacturer.

Now everything I warned them of has come to pass. The environmentalists have flooded the EPA public comments site with thousands upon thousands of additional comments in favor of the regulation of silver as a “pesticide,” and they are now in the process of releasing new studies such as the one described above, ostensibly demonstrating “harm” from products containing tiny silver particles, including colloidal silver.

So can we still win the battle? Well, frankly, it will take a miracle. But I believe in miracles, which is why, in spite of the obstacles, I absolutely refuse to give up at this most critical point in time.

What Can We Do Now?

What I propose is that we now follow what I call the “Gideon strategy.”

You might remember the Bible story about Gideon. He had to lead the children of Israel against tens of thousands of Midianite marauders. But God had ordered Gideon to whittle his initial attack force down from thousands of troops to only 300 brave and faithful men.

So by military standards (heck, by any human standard), the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of the Midianite enemy. But God told Gideon not to worry. He instructed Gideon to arm each of those 300 men with a trumpet, and a lantern hidden within a small ceramic pitcher. Then they were to surround the Midianite encampment late at night. And precisely at midnight these 300 strategically placed troops were told to do three specific things:

First, at a pre-arranged signal they were each to blow their trumpets as loudly as they could.

Second, they were to break open the pitchers covering their lamps, and raise the shining lamps high into the air.

And third, they were told to shout “The Sword of the Lord, and Gideon!” at the tops of their voices.

And what happened when they did so? The Midianites awoke from a sound sleep to what sounded like the trumpet blasts of thousands of armed troops coming from every angle. Then they heard the breaking of the ceramic pitchers and saw the lamps begin to shine all around them, on every side of their camp. Then they heard the terrible shouting: “The sword of the Lord, and Gideon!”

And to a man, the Midianites thought they were completely surrounded by thousands of enemy troops swooping down upon them from the surrounding rocks. And in their haste to escape what they thought was sure death, they began to swing their swords at anything that moved in the dark, killing their own fellow Midianite soldiers in the process. And the more soldiers fell, the more the Midianites were convinced they were under attack by numerically superior troops. So they fled into the darkness like yelping dogs. And Gideon then rallied the rest of Israel’s military to pursue, overtake and defeat them.

Now what does the story of Gideon and his great victory have to do with us?

Simple. The radical environmentalists have us vastly outnumbered. They’ve taken over the comments system on the EPA web site by dumping thousands upon thousands of “click and send” form letters from their global membership base, supporting the drive to have silver regulated as a “pesticide.” And they are now in the process of releasing new medical studies they claim “prove” there is some kind of harm from silver nanoparticles (including colloidal silver), when in reality no such harm exists.

But we have our own versions of Gideon’s trumpet, lamps and voices, which is to say, we have email, fax machines and telephones.

So here’s what you need to do right now:

The public comments deadline is this Friday, the 20th of March. So the next three days are, euphemistically speaking, our “midnight hour.”

And like Gideon of old, who was instructed to attack at the midnight hour with his tiny, rag tag band, we need to start…

Sounding the trumpets (i.e., emailing the EPA)…

Breaking open the lanterns (i.e., faxing the EPA)…

And shouting at the tops of our voices (i.e., calling the EPA on the phone)

We need to let them know in no uncertain terms that we don’t want them to regulate nanosilver in any form as a “pesticide,” and especially, we don’t want them to enforce such “pesticide” regulations against any form or brand of dietary colloidal silver.

We need, simply speaking, to unleash a final massive renewed storm of protest over the plan to have silver regulated as a “pesticide.” Nothing less will do.

So if you can do all three things (i.e., phone, fax and email) please get to it right away. It is absolutely critical that we, like Gideon of old, shake the adversary up like he has never been shaken before. We literally need to make them tremble at the sound of our voices, the light of our determination to maintain our basic health freedoms, and the sword of truth in regards to the safety and benefits of colloidal silver.

Here is the contact information you’re going to need:

Email Your Comments: Email your comments opposing the petition to regulate silver particles as “pesticides” to the new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Her email address is: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

Phone the EPA Administrator's Office: To call the EPA Administrator's office and voice your opinion on this issue, dial (202)-564-4700

Fax Your Comments: Fax your comments to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, at her Washington DC fax number: (202)-501-1450.

It is simply too late to write personal letters at this point in time, so I’m not going to bother to reprint that contact information, though you can find it in the previous post entitled “Dirty Tricks in the Battle to Save Colloidal Silver from EPA Regulation.”

If you don’t have personal access to a fax machine (they are available to use for just a few dollars at just about any local “Mail Boxes Etc.” or “UPS Store”) then use the EPA public comments page. But that’s only a last ditch choice. Right now, faxes will make the most dramatic impact, followed by your personal phone calls and emails.

If you can, please do all three. We need to make a righteous noise for the next three days. And we need to start now. Just call, fax and email the EPA saying the following:

“I respectfully request the EPA reject the petition by environmental groups such as Center for Technology Assessment and Friends of the Earth to force the regulation of silver nanoparticles as ‘pesticides.’ The petition is clearly without merit, as there is no evidence to suggest that tiny particles of silver are causing any harm whatsoever to the environment. Such a new regulatory burden should not be undertaken by the EPA with such flimsy evidence, which amounts to little more than conjecture and exaggeration on the part of the environmentalists. It is particularly important that you do not attempt to regulate any form of colloidal silver dietary supplement – regardless of its content -- as a “pesticide” as this is not only outside of the regulatory purview of the EPA, but is detrimental to the widely acknowledged health freedoms of all Americans.”

Note: In your faxes and emails, please be sure to reference “Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver Products as Pesticides,” and Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650-0506. That way the EPA knows exactly what you are talking about.

Finally…

I honestly hate to keep beating the drum for the little colloidal silver generators. But owning one of these little units may well turn out to be your only way to maintain access to colloidal silver.

You see, once you own the means of colloidal silver production, no one can ever take your colloidal silver away from you, no matter how many onerous regulations they pass.

That’s why I strongly urge you to purchase a new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator as quickly as possible.

With your own high-quality home colloidal silver generator, which is smaller than a coffee pot and even easier to use, you can make all of the safe, natural colloidal silver you want, any time you want, in the comfort, privacy and security of your own home, for about 36 cents a quart. And there is nothing the bureaucrats can do about it.

You can read more about the new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator at: http://www.thesilveredge.com/, or at http://www.microparticlegenerator.com/.

Regards,
S. Spencer Jones

Important Links:

http://www.ColloidalSilverSecretsVideo.com
http://www.UltimateColloidalSilverManual.com
http://www.TheSilverEdge.com
http://www.MicroParticleGenerator.com
http://www.ColloidalSilverCuresMRSA.com
http://www.LifeandHealthResearchGroup.com

Big Drug Companies Fund Groups Behind Plot to Regulate Nano-Silver (Opinion)

Big Drug Companies Fund Groups Behind Plot to Regulate Nano-Silver

Our good friend Tony Isaacs, author, investigative journalist and well-known natural health advocate has discovered what may well be the smoking gun in the campaign by radical environmental groups to have the EPA start regulating products containing silver nano-particles – including dietary colloidal silver products – as "pesticides."

See his brilliant article below to learn how the charitable organizations connected to big drug companies have for years been funding some of the very same environmental groups now responsible for the petition to have silver nano-particles regulated.

As we stated in our previous blog post, "The environmental groups behind the petition to regulate silver particles as ‘pesticides’ get the bulk of their funding, to the tune of millions of dollars a year, from donations from corporate and individual sponsors, as well as from government grants. Our best guess is that Big Pharma is funding these groups through one or more surreptitious pathways to pursue this avenue of silver regulation. After all, who stands to benefit more than Big Pharma from restricting silver’s availability to the general public?"

Boy did we hit the nail on the head. It now appears that at least two big drug companies -- Merck and Pfiizer -- have for many years been using charitable foundations to pour tens of thousands of dollars, and in some cases even millions of dollars worth of funding into some of the very environmental groups now actively engaged in promoting the petition to have "nano-silver" products regulated as "pesticides."

Be sure to note the section in Tony's article below on the Tides Foundation and Tides Center. These are non-profit groups which apparently have been set up to allow Big Pharma and other donors to secretly fund groups the donors don't want the public to know they are funding.

We’ll let Tony’s article speak for itself. Keep in mind, however, that his article only demonstrates that a number of the environmental groups behind the petition to have silver regulated as a "pesticide" have indeed received huge amounts of funding from foundations associated with big drug companies. We will leave it up to you to decide if this massive funding of environmental groups by the major drug companies is what's behind the environmentalist's campaign to put silver nano-particles -- including dietary colloidal silver -- under the EPA's regulatory thumb.

-- Spencer

Merck, other Pharma Companies Funding Activist Groups behind the EPA Petition to Regulate Silver

by Tony Isaacs

Recently it was revealed that a handful of the activist agencies behind the petition to the EPA to regulate nano-silver as a pesticide have received funding from pharmaceutical giant Merck, which annually has hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from patented antibiotics which many believe are less effective, less safe and far more expensive than colloidal nano-silver products.

Now, further investigation has discovered that the initial revelations may just be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Merck and other pharmaceutical companies' funding of the groups who support the EPA petition.

The actual source of the funding that was first revealed in emails and colloidal silver blogsites was the John Merck Fund was set up in 1970 by Serena Merck, the widow of Merck Pharmaceuticals CEO George W. Merck, in honor of their short-lived son John.

The recipients of funding who are signees on the petition to the EPA were identified as:

Funding To Activist Groups, Total Donated, Time Frame

Center for Food Safety $1,305,000.00 1999 – 2005

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy $490,000.00 1992 – 2003

International Center for Technology Assessment $247,500.00 1999 – 1999

Consumers Union of the United States $90,000.00 2000 – 2001

Greenpeace $80,000.00 2000 – 2002

Friends of the Earth $45,000.00 1992 – 2000

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) which along with its sister organization the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), initiated the EPA petition and enlisted the other groups which signed off on the petition, received the second largest amount of funding of any group from the John Merck Fund -- second only to the huge total of the Tides Center/Tides Foundation, whose total funding of almost $2.7 Million dwarfs the combined total of $1.75 Million given to the CFS and the ICTA and CFS.

Tides Foundation & Tides Center $2,693,000.00 1989 – 2005

http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=138

As it turns out, the top funding recipient Tides Foundation and Tides Center are also actively involved in the petition to regulate silver, as well as the source of funding and support to several of the other groups who signed the EPA petition.

When one goes to the Tides Center website, their position is apparent to one and all with the posting of a press release urging support of the EPA petition:

http://www.tidescenter.org/news-resources/news-releases/single-press-release/article/epa-petitioned-to-stop-sale-of-260-products-containing-nanosilver/index.html

Information on Tides Center's website and other web searches found the following Tides Center/Tides Foundation connections to groups involved in the nanosilver petition, but who are not listed as Merck funding recipients:

• Center for Environmental Health (a project of the Tides Center)

• Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (previous funding and connections with the Tides Foundation)

• Clean Production Action (a Tides Center project)

• Food and Water Watch (receives donations from the Tides Foundation)

• The Loka Institute (has no current offices but was previously provided office space and a mailbox in Washington. DC by the International Center for Technology Assessment in their offices)

In addition, a $200,000 grant for 2006-2007 from a second Merck Foundation, the Merck Family Fund to another petitioner, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, was discovered.

A quick internet search reveals that Merck is not the only pharmaceutical company which provides funding to the Tides Foundation and Tides Center, as this listing of the top funding recipient from the Pfizer Foundation demonstrates:

Funding To Activist Groups, Total Donated, Time Frame

Tides Foundation & Tides Center $300,000.00 2003 – 2004

The Tides Foundation is described by Activistcash.com as quickly becoming "the 800 pound gorilla for activist funding."

As reported on ActivistCash:

The Tides foundation was established in 1976 by California activist Drummond Pike. Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used.

In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise (apologies to Procter & Gamble), taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires. Called donor-advised giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money’s original donors. By using Tides to funnel its capital, a large public charity can indirectly fund a project with which it would prefer not to be directly identified in public. Drummond Pike has reinforced this view, telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”

Due to the efforts of many foundations to keep their funding activities anonymous, it is difficult to determine the true scope of pharmaceutical company funding for the Tides group as well as the individual activist groups.

Given the information outlined above, one can only wonder what other pharmaceutical funding is linked to these groups and shudder to think of how many activist groups have been corrupted by funding from Big Pharma and other companies with agendas that are anything but in the public interest.

It is easy to see how such subterfuge can corrupt decision making, the same as can paid lobbyists and political funding. Obviously it would be in the distinct public interest to require full disclosure of funding sources for every organization which petitions a government agency or legislative body to see where there might be funding sources who would stand to benefit as a result of the desired action or legislation.

Similarly, it would also be in the public interest to require full details of all the activities and efforts of lobbyists, including expenses and the details of each meeting held by lobbyists with government officials. While we are at it, we would also be a better informed and better served citizenry if every elected official’s vote on any measure included donations and links to any companies or other entities affected by such legislation.

Granted, such reforms are a tall order, but until we see such altruistic change all the talk about true transparency in government is merely lip service - and the words from our own lips will continue to have little chance of reaching those whose ears are captured by the special interests who have bought off and otherwise rigged the process in their favor.

See Also: "Action Alert: Stop EPA from Eliminating Access to Colloidal Silver"

Notes:

The complete list of groups who signed the petition to the EPA is:

The International Center for Technology Assessment
The Center for Food Safety (the sister organization of the CTA)
Beyond Pesticides
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
ETC Group
Center for Environmental Health
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Clean Production Action
Food and Water Watch
The Loka Institute
The Center for Study of Responsive Law, and Consumers Union

Sources included:

http://www.silvermedicine.org/nano-silver.html
http://www.activistcash.com/
http://www.tidescenter.org/

Important Links:

http://www.colloidalsilversecretsvideo.com/
http://www.ultimatecolloidalsilvermanual.com/
http://www.thesilveredge.com/
http://www.microparticlegenerator.com/
http://www.colloidalsilvercuresmrsa.com/
http://www.lifeandhealthresearchgroup.com/

Dirty Tricks in the Battle to Save Colloidal Silver from EPA Regulation

Dirty Tricks in the Battle to Save Colloidal Silver from EPA Regulation

Environmentalists take advantage of comments extension deadline to overwhelm EPA comments page with thousands of form letters demanding the regulation of silver particles as “pesticides.”

Well, I warned you that the environmentalist whackos who are petitioning the EPA to regulate "nano-silver" (read: colloidal silver) into oblivion would have to come up with some clever "dirty tricks" in order to win this battle, particularly once they saw that colloidal silver users had unexpectedly rallied against them and had posted nearly 1,000 pro-silver comments on the EPA public comments page.

Before I reveal what kind of dirty tricks they’ve pulled off, let me first give you a little bit of important background information:

Background

When this blog first sounded the alarm in early January about the environmentalist plot to have silver nano-particles regulated as a "pesticide" by the EPA, we revealed that the EPA had already been taking public comments on this issue on their web site for over a month without the knowledge of anyone in the colloidal silver industry.

And during that same time, the rabid environmentalist groups behind the petition were urging their members to post anti-silver comments to the EPA web site, demanding the EPA to implement strict regulations against products containing silver nano-particles, including colloidal silver.

So by the time we first discovered that a plot to regulate silver as a "pesticide" was afoot, the comments were already running ten to one in favor of the petition to have silver nano-particles regulated as “pesticides.”

But with a January 20th deadline for public comments looming, we worked day and night to rally the troops, and managed to cobble together a loose-knit coalition of colloidal silver users, natural health enthusiasts and members of various health freedom organizations to oppose the petition.

And within less than a week our efforts had triggered a massive flood of protests on the EPA web site against the petition to regulate products containing nano-silver as "pesticides." Indeed, the comments on the EPA web site quickly began running just over 100 to one against the petition.

EPA Intervenes

With the January 20th deadline closing in, victory was in sight. Surely, we thought, the EPA would not accept the petition from the rabid environmentalists with such a dramatic public outcry against it.

That's when the EPA stepped in.

Seeing that the tide of public opinion had turned so strongly against the petition, the EPA suddenly acted on an earlier plea by the environmental groups behind the petition to extend the comments deadline by another 60 days, from January 20th to March 20th, in order to give them more time to solicit support for the petition.

Why did the EPA do this? Simple. The EPA is a bureaucracy, like any other: They exist solely to expand their power, regulatory reach and authority. And they had fully expected the petition urging them to more widely regulate products containing silver nano-particles as "pesticides" would give them a broad public mandate to do so.

But when the tide of public opinion turned against the petition, the EPA had to do something about it quickly, or lose their desired public mandate. So they took into consideration the plea from the rabid environmentalists to extend the comments deadline, and then granted it. Dirty

Trick #1: Click and Send Form Letters

The environmental groups quickly realized that their efforts to have silver particles regulated as "pesticides" had been given a second life, so to speak. So they kicked into high gear and fell back on an old tactic of theirs that has given them many victories in the past.

Instead of urging their large membership bases to take the time to draft personal comments and go to the EPA web site and post them, they instead began a campaign of mass-emailings, sending email “blasts” to their entire global membership bases urging them to go to a special web page where they could simply click on a link that automatically signed their name to a form letter supporting the petition to have the EPA regulate silver as a “pesticide.”

In other words, the members of these global environmental groups weren’t even asked to put pen to paper, or sit at a keyboard and write out their comments in support of the petition. Instead, they simply clicked a link that automatically signed their name to a pre-written form letter.

Those form letters then quietly accumulated in the online databases of the environmental groups until they had thousands of them. As a result of this tactic, the global environmental groups have managed to secretly accumulate nearly 6,000 new comments since the original comment deadline of January 20th passed – far more than the colloidal silver community and natural health community have been able to garner.

And they now are in the process of posting this extraordinary new wave of comments to the EPA public comments web page, en masse.

In short, in one short and swift stroke the environmental groups have managed to give the appearance that they have turned the tide of public opinion back strongly in favor of the petition!

This could not have happened, of course, had not the EPA granted the requests for a public comments deadline extension filed by the environmentalist groups.

Now, the EPA can simply look at all of those thousands of new public comments and conclude that they have a “broad public mandate” to begin regulating products containing nano-silver as ‘pesticides’.

Dirty Trick #2: Misinformation and Deception

George Foss, a leading nutritional supplement formulator, and long-time consultant to the nutritional supplement industry, has posted a new comment on the EPA public comments page, protesting the fact that the nearly 6,000 letters submitted by the rabid environmental groups in favor of having the EPA regulate silver nano-particles as “pesticides” are nothing more than mere form letters.

Foss also points out that the information emailed by the environmental groups to their global membership bases asking them to auto-sign the petitions was misleading at best, and grossly deceptive at worst.

In other words, each of these nearly 6,000 form letters in favor of the petition were “signed” based upon misleading information provided by the environmental groups. In fairness, they should therefore be invalidated, or at the very least, their impact on the EPA’s decision-making process should be dramatically minimized.

This won’t happen, of course. As I pointed out earlier, the EPA is a bureaucracy like any other. They exist to expand their power and regulatory reach. And since public support is given so much weight in their decision-making process (like all politicians and bureaucrats, they require public support to justify their actions), there is unfortunately no way they are going to minimize or discount the impact of those nearly 6,000 new letters asking them to regulate products containing nano-silver particles as “pesticides.”

Time permitting, in upcoming blog posts we’ll take a look at some of the specific misinformation the environmental groups have been including in their emails to their membership bases, in order to con them into signing the petition to regulate “silver nano-particles” (read: colloidal silver) as “pesticides.”

We’ll also take a look at some of the hidden financial tie-ins we’ve discovered between the environmental groups and Big Pharma. Yes, the major drug companies are up to their necks in this. You’ll find the information shocking, to say the least. Slowly, the real reason the environmentalists are leading this campaign to have silver particles regulated as “pesticides” is coming to light.

Where Does That Leaves Us?

If there’s any good news in all of this, it’s that with the petition deadline being extended to March 20th, there’s still time to mount a successful counter-attack. We did it once, and we can do it again.

Of course, considering the relatively unorganized, rag-tag nature of the colloidal silver community, and the fact that the environmental groups behind this petition have a vastly larger and more disciplined base of support in their combined global membership, winning the battle at this point is, quite frankly, going to be difficult at best.

I said difficult…but definitely not impossible.

The big mistake the environmentalists made was to have their members sign a pre-written form letter. By doing so, they managed to obtain nearly 6,000 new comments favorable to their petition to have the EPA regulate silver nano-particles as “pesticides.”

On the other hand, the colloidal silver and natural health communities have submitted only about 1,000 comments to the EPA. But almost all of them have been completely original, individually written comments, which should carry far more weight than mere form letters – particularly “click and send” form letters.

So while the environmentalists have indeed vastly surpassed our collective efforts, numerically speaking, we have something going for us that they don’t, i.e., the power of sincerely written personal comments which hopefully carry a lot more weight than mere form letters.

Keep Up the Pressure on FDA…and Expect More Dirty Tricks

Obviously, if we want to keep colloidal silver from being regulated into oblivion by the EPA, we need to keep up the public pressure on them, right up to the new public comments deadline of March 20, 2009.

We absolutely cannot give the EPA even a moment’s rest on this issue. We must let them see that we will not stand by idly while they try to regulate colloidal silver (along with other nanosilver-based products) as a “pesticide,” which would effectively take most colloidal silver produced today off the market.

In about a week or so, I’ll be presenting a new strategy for making our voices heard loudly and clearly on this issue. But I don’t want to tip my hand too early, because it is clear now that the rabid environmental groups are watching every move we make, and using their vast global membership bases to counter our moves.

In the meantime, use the EPA contact information below to contact the EPA and voice your opinion.

IMPORTANT! There is a brand new administrator at the EPA, Obama-appointee Lisa Jackson, who is likely not very familiar with this issue. We need to educate her immediately.

I have provided the phone number to her office below, as well as her email address. So even if you have already taken steps to contact the EPA on this issue in the recent past, please do so again right away.

With a new EPA administrator, we face what is tantamount to a whole new ballgame. But as of today we have only 15 days to bring her up to speed on this issue by letting her know how we feel about the idea of regulating products containing silver nano-particles as "pesticides."

More Dirty Tricks Coming!

Without a doubt you can expect more dirty tricks from these rabid environmentalists in the coming weeks, including the last-minute posting of “studies” demonstrating their contention that silver nano-particles are somehow “harmful” to the environment.

The enviro-nuts will most likely wait until the very last minute to present these studies to the EPA because they know it will not leave time for our side to review and digest them, and provide point-by-point rebuttals or refutations.

The environmental groups have also already cited studies which they claim “prove” silver nano-particles harm humans as well as the animals in the environment.

But of course, what they never disclose is the fact that those studies were done under controlled laboratory conditions that simply don’t exist in the environment. And that in every case, either huge overdoses of silver nano-particles were used, or living cells and tissues were exposed to pure silver nanoparticles in ways that simply could not be duplicated outside of the laboratory, and therefore have no bearing on human or animal real-life experiences with silver.

As you’ve no doubt seen in the news over the past few years, deception is almost an art form within the scientific community these days. Studies are routinely faked in order to gain approval of drugs, or gain funding for additional studies, or for a number of other reasons. So don’t fall for the b.s. when the environmentalists begin releasing it.

What we need to do in the meantime is maintain steady pressure on the EPA. Let them know you are aware of what is going on, and you are not going to put up with it. Tell them in no uncertain terms that you don’t want them to accept the petition to regulate silver nano-particles as “pesticides.”

Also, it has been brought to our attention that over the last few weeks a small handful of members of the environmental groups behind this petition have begun to question why a nutritional supplement like colloidal silver should be regulated as a “pesticide” alongside other products containing nano-silver.

And in response, the environmental groups have begun misleading their members by telling them they are not out to regulate “traditional-silver based products” (without explaining what they mean by that) – this, even though they have listed the top three most popular brands of colloidal silver in the addendum to their petition, along with numerous other colloidal silver brands, claiming they are in need of EPA regulation as “pesticides.” So don’t fall for their dissimulating tactics at this late point in the game.

Enviro-Nuts Want to Regulate ALL Nutritional Supplements

As I mentioned in a previous blog post, these neo-Luddite environmentalists are ultimately out to have all nutritional supplements that contain tiny particles of the active ingredient placed under bureaucratic control, using the “nano-particle” issue as the precedent.

They are already targeting for regulation a variety of other popular nutritional supplements just because they contain tiny particles of the active ingredient that allow for better absorption by the human body, and thus work better. (It is getting clearer and clearer that Big Pharma is behind this campaign.)

If you think I’m kidding, go to this web page and read the article entitled “Nanoparticles In Dietary Supplements Cause Health Concerns, Regulatory Challenges.”Or go to this web page and read the article titled, “Questioning the Safety Of Nanotechnology In Your Vitamins.”

Yes, the enviro-nuts are anticipating victory in the battle to regulate colloidal silver, and have already started the propaganda war against other nutritional supplements.

Why? Because in their warped minds, if tiny particles of silver are dangerous, so are tiny particles of any other active ingredient.

The bottom line is that we have to stop them here and now. We can’t let them start regulating colloidal silver as a “pesticide,” or they will have set the precedent to regulate every other nutritional supplement on planet earth into oblivion – especially since we already know they will simply re-define the term “nano” until it covers every product ingredient imaginable.

Alert Friends, Family, Co-Workers!

So be sure to alert your friends, family members and co-workers who might also be natural health enthusiasts. Explain to them that once the environmentalists have set the precedent against colloidal silver, they intend to come after all nutritional supplements, using the “nano-particle” issue to put supplements firmly under bureaucratic regulation.

Get your friends, family members and co-workers to follow through with you and take one or more of the simple, below-described actions to help stop the EPA from regulating silver as a “pesticide.”

Once again, here are five simple yet highly effective steps you need to take right away:

Post Your Comments: Go to the brand new EPA public comments page at this link (click here) and post your comments directly to the EPA web site. Explain why you do not want the EPA to regulate silver nanoparticles as “pesticides,” which would result in a de facto ban on all products containing silver nano-particles, including colloidal silver.

Email Your Comments: Email your comments opposing the petition to regulate silver particles as “pesticides” to the new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Her email address is: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

Phone the EPA Administrator's Office: To call the EPA Administrator's office and voice your opinion on this issue, dial (202)-564-4700

Fax Your Comments: Fax your comments to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, at her Washington DC fax number: (202)-501-1450.

Write a Personal Letter: Send a personal letter to the Washington DC office of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Her address is as follows:

Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) RegulatoryPublic Docket (7502P)
ATTN: Administrator Lisa Jackson
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001

Personal letters and phone calls have more impact than any other method of communication with bureaucrats. So if you have the extra time, print out your comments, stick them in an envelope, and mail them to the EPA administrator at the address above. And most certainly call the new EPA administrator's office and let them know that you are opposed to the "Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver Products as Pesticides."

Important Note: All comments to the EPA – whether you make them by calling, emailing, faxing, snail mailing or through the public comments section of their web site -- must reference the “Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver Products as Pesticides,” and must also reference the new Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650-0506. That way they know exactly what you are talking about.

We can't let the rabid environmental groups win this battle. If we do, colloidal silver will be regulated into oblivion, and the stage will have been set for the regulation of all other nutritional supplements containing tiny particles of the active ingredient.

So if you've not yet taken any of the four steps spelled out above, be sure to do so right away. And if you've already done one or two of them, do the rest. It is absolutely essential that we keep up the pressure on the EPA all of the way to the comments extension deadline of March 20th.

Regards,
S. Spencer Jones

P.S. One permanent and highly effective personal solution to this pending encroachment of your health freedom is to obtain a high-quality colloidal silver generator, so that you own the means of colloidal silver production, and are in no way dependent upon the whims of bureaucrats for access to colloidal silver.

We strongly recommend the brand new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from our good friends at http://www.thesilveredge.com/.

This bona-fide breakthrough in colloidal silver-making technology allows you to produce high-quality colloidal silver solutions containing silver particles as low as .0008 microns, which is a mere fraction of a single micron in size.

What’s more, with a new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator you can produce high-quality colloidal silver for less than 36 cents a quart, which is about as close as you’ll ever come to having FREE colloidal silver for the rest of your life.

Indeed, when you consider the fact that commercial brands of colloidal silver now sell for anywhere from $15 to $30 for a tiny four-ounce bottle, you can easily see that your first one or two quart-sized batches of micro-particle colloidal silver will fully pay for the entire cost of your new generator. In other words, the unit pays for itself almost immediately!

So do consider the situation at hand, and act quickly and decisively. The EPA is already demanding that devices that produce silver particles be brought under their regulatory umbrella as “pesticide producing devices” (see The Coming Ban on Colloidal Silver Generators to learn more).

So if you are interested in owning the means of colloidal silver production and thereby freeing yourself from encroaching bureaucratic intervention in the colloidal silver marketplace, it is absolutely vital that you act right away, before they ban the little colloidal silver generators, too.

Go to http://www.thesilveredge.com/ today, and learn more about making your own high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver in the comfort and privacy of your own home.

Important Links:

http://www.ColloidalSilverSecretsVideo.com
http://www.UltimateColloidalSilverManual.com
http://www.TheSilverEdge.com
http://www.MicroParticleGenerator.com
http://www.ColloidalSilverCuresMRSA.com
http://www.lifeandhealthresearchgroup.com/